Thursday, May 10, 2012

David Aaronovitch: British Gang Rapes Linked to Islam

I'm literally shocked to see an article like this in a mainstream newspaper. Columnist David Aaronovitch is sure to be met with charges of "racism" and "Islamophobia" for stating the obvious.

TIMES OF LONDON--Yesterday morning I woke up to the smell of smoke. It was coming from my radio. The Deputy Children’s Commissioner Sue Berelowitz was being interviewed about the Rochdale grooming case. “It’s not a problem confined to one community,” she told listeners. “It is absolutely happening across all ethnic and religious groups.”

The problem was, she suggested, that people were now looking for this one pattern — street grooming by groups of men from the Pakistani community — and wrongly finding it. Ms Berelowitz then blew a little more fog over the subject by invoking 14-year-old boys who abuse 11-year-old girls, and then disappeared into her own mist.

I understand her desire for obfuscation. The crime is horrible — our reporter Andrew Norfolk described yesterday how underage girls were multiply raped on a bare mattress above a kebab shop. And there are people in this country whose prejudices and politics are well served by suggesting that this is what Muslim migrants are like. Put the two together and you can easily come up with something that smells like Nick Griffin.

But what does Ms Berelowitz know that Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, whom I met in Rochdale seven years ago, doesn’t? Pointing out that of 68 recent convictions involving street grooming 59 were of British Pakistani men, Mr Shafiq concluded with characteristic straightforwardness that the community clearly had a problem. In his view, a minority of Pakistani men had got it into their heads that white girls were fair game.

What information did she have that Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor for northwest England and the man leading the prosecution in this case, didn’t? He blamed “imported cultural baggage”. “[The men] think that women are some lesser being. The availability of vulnerable young white girls is what has drawn the men to them.”

What does she understand that Martin Narey, former head of Barnardo’s, who has been achingly careful on this subject, doesn’t quite get? “For this particular type of crime ... there is very troubling evidence that Asians are overwhelmingly represented in the prosecutions for such offences,” he said on Tuesday.

What is her experience of life in these northern towns that leads her to contradict Ann Cryer, the former Labour MP for Keighley, whose warnings on this subject went unheeded for years? The police and social services, Ms Cryer charges, “were petrified of being called racist ... They had a greater fear of being perceived in that light than in dealing with the issues in front of them.”

And so on. If you cannot call the thing what it is, then not only will you fail with policies aimed at stopping it, but you will also encourage the very forces that you most fear. It is precisely into the gap between the elite’s description of the world and the reality that people face that the extremist steps. (Read more.)

David, surely a show or a youtube video explaining from Islamic lit. the influences on why Muslims would see non muslim girls as fair game? this of course is not confined to GB its happening all over europe and Egypt too.

another newspaper said "You can object that this is wrong. You can argue that the entirely British education these young men received had failed to overcome whatever prejudices (they might say ‘values’) they had imbibed at home. But it was striking to me that these British-born, British-educated Asian men,"

Nice try. You're claiming that the only way Islam could be linked to the rape of non-Muslims is if the Qur'an or the Hadith clearly state, "Rape is a virtue." Sheer nonsense.

Islam teaches that non-Muslims are "the worst of creatures," that women are inferior to men, that good women lower their gaze (and that women who do otherwise are therefore bad), that men may rape their female captives, etc.

Are you seriously telling us that these teachings have nothing to do with what your Muslim brothers are doing to young girls in the UK? How then do you explain the correlation?

the report says "The authorities had evidence this was going on as long ago as 1991"

A friend of mine who was a social worker told me this has been happening for a long time and he dealt with such cases, they somehow managed to keep them quiet because of fears it might turn into racial discrimination. Go figure!

"Nice try. You're claiming that the only way Islam could be linked to the rape of non-Muslims is if the Qur'an or the Hadith clearly state, "Rape is a virtue." Sheer nonsense."

Actually David, it's called "following through" or producing a sequitur argument. You presented the case that these acts were due to Islamic teachings, therefore if it is your argument is to be valid, there must be some evidences for it. As it stands, you're appealing to emotive preaching, "Muslim does X, so Islam promotes X", it doesn't work like that. Fallacy of appeal to hasty generalization. We have Christians here who rape kids and beat them to death, chop women in the middle of roads, killing little kids, yet I don't blame the Christians, I know a good hearted Christian wouldn't do that, but a sick minded individual would. So unless you like appealing to fallacies, you'll have to show where it is a religious virtue in Islam to rape women. One verse or hadith which mentions: “ightisaab” is a virtue.

"Islam teaches that non-Muslims are "the worst of creatures".

Emotive preaching doesn't work on me, sorry. Jesus taught worse, that Jews are the children of Satan and gentiles are pigs and dogs, don't see how you can throw stones when you live in a glass house. Also I'd love to see you justify that quote to me, for a man who can't speak a word of Arabic, Greek or Hebrew, you really like using evidences you can't satiate.

"that women are inferior to men, that good women lower their gaze (and that women who do otherwise are therefore bad)".

Nowhere in Islam does it say a woman is inferior to a man because she is a female. Rather females and both males have inefficiencies. Islam indicates both and thus it promotes addressing the faults in our "Hayah" and "adab" (go google these words). Men and women are both commanded to lower their gazes from the opposite sex in Islam.

“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest.” (An-Nur: 30-31)

Proof by contradiction. Now tell me why you ignored the part about men? Is this the kind of preaching your minions like? Really pathetic and deceptive David, can't say I expected *beter* from you.

"that men may rape their female captives, etc."

Show me that please, would love to see where we are commanded to do “ightisaab”.

"Are you seriously telling us that these teachings have nothing to do with what your Muslim brothers are doing to young girls in the UK? How then do you explain the correlation?"

What correlation? They are Asian, so does that mean Asians are responsible for their actions? They are drunks, does that mean all drunks are responsible for their actions. They're South Continent migrants, does that mean continent migrants are responsible for their actions?

So, how about you man up David, why blame Muslims for an act of rape, when you can't provide any shred of evidence linking Islamic motivation by them to do such an evil act. I might just take your argument of Qur'an 10:94, claim they were following Bamidbar (Numbers) 31 and use that as an argument, it's just as good as yours.

You really need to stop cheerleading for this guy. Be your own man, it's kind of pathetic really. If you want to, it's not a problem, but man the hive mind and circle jerking is really pathetic. I feel sorry for you.

"Islam teaches that non-Muslims are "the worst of creatures," that women are inferior to men, that good women lower their gaze (and that women who do otherwise are therefore bad), that men may rape their female captives, etc."

RESPONSE:

Here is what the Glorious Quran Says about what you talked about:

1- The doomed-to-Hell infidels being the worst creatures doesn't give any justification for any Muslim to be like them:

[060:005] `Our Lord, make us not a trial (فتنة) for those who disbelieve, and forgive us, our Lord; for, Thou alone art Mighty, the Wise.'

2- Women aren't inferior to men. You are a liar!

[033:035] For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise,- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.

3- As to lowering the gaze, it's on both men and women. Both men and women were also commanded to be chaste. See Glorious Quran 24:30-31.

4- As to raping the female captives, this is another lie:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

"And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 24:33)"

Yes Islam does not permit rape of Muslim women. But Islam does permit rape and adultery with and of female non Muslim captives!

Narrated Anas bin Malik:Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,"O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

1. refuted - Narrated Anas bin Malik:Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,"O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

2. refuted - Qur'an (2:282) - "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women."

Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"

* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn women shall have rights, due from their spouses, similar to those, rights, due from them, with justice, as stipulated by the Law, in the way of kind conjugality and not being harmed; but their men have a degree above them, in rights, as in their duty to obey their husbands, because of their [the husbands’] payment of a dowry and their [husbands] being the bread-winners; God is Mighty, in His Kingdom, Wise, in what He has ordained for His creatures.

Bukhari (6:301) - "[Muhammad] said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her intelligence.'" - continued - "[Muhammad said] 'Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?' The women replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her religion.'" Allah has made women deficient in the practice of their religion as well, by giving them menstrual cycles.

Muslim (4:1039) - "A'isha said [to Muhammad]: 'You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses'"

3. same answer refuted in 2.

4. I already posted the clear example of Muslims having the right to rape the female non Muslim captives by virtue of them being non Muslim, women, and they are not equal in either. Read my previous post to conningchristians!

"Why are you asking US this? You should be ask those large number of Muslims that apparently disagree with you."

What large group of Muslims? I still don't see where anyone here is proving that rape is a religiously endorsed act or an act of virtue in Islam. I'm seeing people saying "Muslims do X", well Christians do X, Atheists do X. You guys need to buck up on your arguments, the standard's been getting low, well worse, never was good.

Oh and 24:33 has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of sex with captives. 24:33 is speaking about making your female captives prostitutes! You are a LIAR!

* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn

And do not compel your slave-girls, your handmaidens, to prostitution, fornication, when they desire to be chaste, to abstain therefrom (this ‘desire’ is the cause of the [act of] ‘compulsion’, so that the statement is not properly a conditional), that you may seek, through such compulsion, the transient things of the life of this world — this was revealed regarding ‘Abd Allāh b. Ubayy, who used to force his slave-girls to earn money through fornication. And should anyone compel them, then surely God, after their compulsion, will be Forgiving, to these [slave-girls], Merciful, to them.

* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘AbbâsThen the following was revealed about 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and his host because they used to force their female slaves to commit adultery in order to earn money from them and have more slaves as result of the children they bore as a consequence, and so Allah forbade them from doing this and made such an act forbidden: (Force not your slave girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world) from what they earn from working as prostitutes and also from the children they give birth to, (if they would preserve their chastity) if they want to remain chaste. (And if one force them) and if one force these slave girl to commit adultery, (then (unto them), after their compulsion) and repentance, (Lo! Allah will be Forgiving) He forgives them, (Merciful) and He will show mercy towards them after they die.

How do you look yourself in the mirror Osama? Oh yeah, your Allah is the greatest of deceivers so you believe you are being moral by being a liar like your Allah!

"But Islam does permit rape and adultery with and of female non Muslim captives!".

Where does Surah 4:24, Abu Dawud 2150 or Sahih al Muslim 3433 mention rape? Consensual sex is not rape. In Bamidbar 31, was that rape?

Where do any of those ahadith or ayat al Qur'an mention "rape"? It mentions the practises of those who engaged in sexual relations, but rape, nothing. Sorry, but you need to search harder, what an oxymoron for a name.

We have proved these things so many times, so often that it is just a forgone conclusion. We havent run into any good argument from any Muslim in a while, well I mean ever.

So you come here after posting a couple of logical fallacies,. lies and misrepresentations and you think we havent done this before. Well you should go back and read. You look foolish when you make such ridiculous ad hominum attacks.

It doesnt have to say the word rape. That is a logical fallacy and a preposterous statement.

1.First of all the women were already married.

2.The husbands were captive and present.

3.The Muslim men didnt want to have sex with them in the presence of their husbands.

4. Your Allah ( Satan) granted them permission.

5. The women are right hand possessions

6. pos·ses·sion [puh-zesh-uhn] Show IPAnoun1a.the act or fact of possessing.2a.the state of being possessed.3a.ownership.4.Law . actual holding or occupancy, either with or without rights of ownership.5a.a thing possessed: He packed all his possessions into one trunk

7. Ma malakat aymanukum ("what your right hands possess" ما ملكت أيمانکم) is a reference in the Qur'an to slaves. The term itself is normally considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general

8. "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

(And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation. (No mention of asking permission from what you possess.)

And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy ( no mention of asking for consent)

Shall I go on? Now tell me your the new and greatest scholar of Islam and all of the previous ones and the Sahih hadith are incorrect. There is no mention of asking consent. And you dont ask a possession for permission to do something.

"We have proved these things so many times, so often that it is just a forgone conclusion. We havent run into any good argument from any Muslim in a while, well I mean ever."

How are two adults having consensual relations, forced sex or rape? This is what I do not understand. You Christians read one word and then claim another. Show me where RAPE is allowed. Sex is allowed, but where is RAPE allowed?

"So you come here after posting a couple of logical fallacies,."

What logical fallacies did I include in my posts?

"lies and misrepresentations and you think we havent done this before. Well you should go back and read. You look foolish when you make such ridiculous ad hominum attacks."

What lies? What should I read? The word is ad hominem, as well as, you're using ad hominem by calling me, "conning christians", that in itself is either blissful ignorance or thundering hypocrisy.

“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest.” (An-Nur: 30-31)

Sura al-Ahzab 33:37,

"When thou saidst to him whom God has blessed and thou hadst favoured, 'Keep thy wife to thyself; and fear God', and thou wast concealing within thyself what God should reveal, fearing other men; and God has better right for thee to fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished what he would of her, then We gave her in marriage to thee, so that there should not be any fault in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted son, when they had accomplished what they would of them; and God's commandment must be performed."

Marrying ones own daughter-in-law was a no-no with Muhammad being the exception to the rule of course.

Your arguments are just deflection from the real question about what ISLAM teaches. I'm only going to say a little: I've seen your argument of Jesus saying that Jews are children of the devil. It is a story I'm very familiar with and probably just about every Christian is, so you're not fooling anyone. I've seen Jewish anti-missionaries use this as well. The big problem when I see this is that you can't possibly read this passage and believe that Jesus was actually saying this about Jews in general, or that gentiles can't be "children of the devil" as well (1 John 3:10). It is either dishonest to bring it up or you never read the passages yourself (which I suggest anyone who hasn't done so). The same goes for the passage about Jesus supposedly calling the woman a dog, which he didn't actually do, but was rather testing her faith (you can see this by how the encounter ends - Mark 7 and Matt 15).

Other than that, David's assertions are not hasty generalizations, and he's never argued that Islam must teach X because Muslims do X. For your evidence of what Islam teaches, you need look no further than Robert Spencer's debate with Nadir Ahmed which was the VERY LAST POST before this one. This post seems to be rather meant as a follow-up example of the consequence of that teaching Spencer exposed. After all, just maybe if Muslims over-whelmingly do X a LOT more, and you can find X in Islamic sources, then you can maybe say that the teaching influenced them to do it. I don't see how that's stereotyping Muslims. It's just simple cause and effect.

Quote:And so on. If you cannot call the thing what it is, then not only will you fail with policies aimed at stopping it, but you will also encourage the very forces that you most fear. end

And the more afraid you are, the less faith you have.And wherever faith is missing, where Islam attacks, fear will meet it.The Britons have never, ever in their long history, so disarmed themselves as now.

Logical Fallacies: For starters, how about 1) moving the goalposts, and 2) strawman arguments, 3) Argument from ignorance?

1) It doesn't seem to matter to you if the Islamic sources say that sex with certain women is permissible and that there are many Muslim leaders who teach this today. It IS true that under NORMAL circumstances, you assume the definition of sex to include consent, but we're talking about sex slaves and captive women, not NORMAL circumstances. It is assumed that consent is irrelevant whenever you're talking about slaves who are expected to do their masters' will. Forced "consent" is no consent at all! Why don't you tell me why consent ISN'T mentioned?!?

2) David never tried to make all Muslims responsible. He's trying to point out a consequence of Islamic teaching. Anyone who follows his work knows this is always his position, and every so often he clarifies this explicitly.

3) You can't point only to David's comment and say "prove it, I don't see how you did, so you must be wrong. HA!" Like I said, much of what you posted is addressed in the Spencer VS Ahmed debate.

I just want to also say that S4T is not known to be gentle, but there's a difference between him attacking you by calling you "ConningChristians", etc. and actually committing the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy would go more like this: "I have reason to believe that CallingChristians is dishonest and commits logical fallacies. Therefore, he must be wrong about his argument concerning rape in Islam."

"It doesnt have to say the word rape. That is a logical fallacy and a preposterous statement."

Do you know the term, "logical fallacy" even means? You keep claiming this and you've yet to bring any evidences. Secondly, if you are claiming that sex is rape, you'd have to demonstrate how and why. Otherwise you're saying all sex is rape and all rape is sex.

"1.First of all the women were already married."

Who 'all' the women? Women who are captured during war are either freed, joins the family or marries into the family. You are saying, every single battle the Muslims one, that 'all the women were married'?

"2.The husbands were captive and present."

Which is why we are told to free (manumit the slaves).

"3.The Muslim men didnt want to have sex with them in the presence of their husbands."

Incorrect, they were wondering what the rules were if the incident occurred relations could occur, if it did occur, what were the rulings.

"4. Your Allah ( Satan) granted them permission."

Insulting my beliefs won't make me convert to your faith, also very childish. Did YHWH not grant the same for Moses in Numbers 31?

"5. The women are right hand possessions"

It's called a figure of speech.

"7. Ma malakat aymanukum ("what your right hands possess" ما ملكت أيمانکم) is a reference in the Qur'an to slaves. The term itself is normally considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general"

A prisoner of war is not a slave and vice versa. See my article on slavery here:

"8. "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24"

(And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation. (No mention of asking permission from what you possess.)"

Doesn't need for it to ask permission, the Qur'an already gives that directive.

And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy ( no mention of asking for consent)"

All of these quotes are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with rape. Women don't go around saying "YES, STICK IT INSIDE OF ME", I don't see where that is a law either. So if you expected that, you must still be a virgin or must be very socially inept.

"Shall I go on? Now tell me your the new and greatest scholar of Islam and all of the previous ones and the Sahih hadith are incorrect. There is no mention of asking consent. And you dont ask a possession for permission to do something."

I still see nothing saying RAPE is permissible. Where is RAPE permissible or a virtue?

If I was to kill you, your father and your brothers in war would you mother, sister, wife, daughter want to have sex with me either that night or a few nights later?

If not could you explain why?"

See the debate between David Wood and Ali Ataie where this question is addressed in detail. Safiyyah told her father of a dream she had of Muhammad {saw}, she told him he was going to be coming soon. She was mocked and beaten by her family. The Jewish leaders already conceded this was prophesied, he came and it all played out as the dream indicated.

I would like to think, running from an abusive family to someone you dreamt of as saving you is seeking asylum.

"Muslim (4:1039) - "A'isha said [to Muhammad]: 'You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses'""

RESPONSE:

You are either a big liar or ignorant. Aisha responded to a man who said that a man's prayer gets nullified if a

1- Woman2- Dog3- Donkey

Pass in front of him. *******Aisha responded to him by saying that Prophet Muhammad, her husband, used to pray at night while she was sleeping and laying down while being in front of him. So she corrected the man's ignorance or lies as I am correcting yours here.

As to the rest of your garbage, I'll get to it some other time.

The reader can visit: www.answering-christianity.com/view_of_women.htm to see how women in Islam are treated compared to the Bible.

Calling you conning Christians is an accurate description of what I think of you and Islam./ Conning is an adjective that accurately depicts what you do. And you are willfully ignorant. If a person has sex with another person while they are married or the person they had sex with are married I will call them adulterers. When a person kills another to steal from or because they will not do as you want them to, I will call them a murderer. When a person has sex with a child I will call that person a child molester. When a person takes female captives who are already married as their possession and has sex with them, that is rape. There is NO rational, or logical, or anyone with any ability for objective reasoning, criticaql thinking, or intellectual integrity that would even attempt to imply that a woman after being taken captive with her husband and family is lusting after the men who attacked, killed, stole from, and took captive her family and friends.

And I make a couple spelling errors, shall I go back and find some of yours? And then what will you say? Will you admit your a hypocrite? Next time you make any spelling error now you are up for equal criticism.

And you are the one who began your responses with the ad hominem attacks. Go back and read them in order and context. Oh wait, your a Muslim, that goes against your nature.

If you are capable of being honest you will see that I called you CC at first! And then you attacked my name! Read the order. And if you want more evidence that a slave or captive cannot deny sexual advances. Just think what the punishment for a wife who denies her husbands sexual advances! There is no instruction for a slave! BECAUSE YOU OWN THEM!

CallingChrsitians argument is that "the quran o hadiths don't say rape, so it's consensual sex" the hadith doesn't say either it isn't rape, and considering that Sex was/is the fuel of Islam, we must not be surprise.

Anyway i'm not an expecrt on Hadiths but any muslim is, they just say "this one is reliable" and when you ask why is that and not the next, they remain quiet..so i give this one proving the rapes were commited by Allahs soldiers:

Tabari IX:137 "Allah granted Rayhanah of the [Jewish] Qurayza to His Messenger as booty [but only after she had been forced to watch him decapitate her father and brother, seen her mother hauled off to be RAPED, and her sisters sold into slavery]."

Shame on Tabari for lying about the Prophet!!!!, knowing that it could cost him his life, if it wasn't a common practice between muslims at that time, i don't know how he dared to write this without fear of being decapitated...

BTW i know it's not a propblem for Muslims but can you see how Allah's mind works? He considers non-muslim captive women so low that Muslim men can actually have sex with them and it even doesn't count as adultery, i mean i heard that the quran or hadith says you can't have sex with animals because it is a sin, yet having sex with non muslim women is not a sin at all...

To finish i wanna quote these hadiths, i don't know if this woman is one of those Muslims say that Muhammad took by force but later on they were happy with him... but even so notice the ending of the hadith:

Bukhari:V4B52N143V5B59N523 "When we reached Khaybar, Muhammad said that Allah had enabled him to conquer them. It was then that the beauty of Safiyah was described to him. Her husband had been killed [by Muhammad], so Allah's Apostle selected her for himself. He took her along with him till we reached a place where her menses were over and he took her for his wife, consummating his marriage to her, and forcing her to wear the veil.'"

I thought the vail was something you use by your own will, and you can't force any woman to use it, or that's what they say to ppl here at west.

Also this one: Bukhari:V5B59N524"The Muslims said among themselves, 'Will Safiyah be one of the Prophet's wives or just a lady captive and one of his possessions?'"

It's like whatever safiyah is nothing but a captive, so it doesn't even count as a sin to have even more women, because Allah (as Aisha said) gives Muhammad what he wants, it's funny that what he wants is what corrupted ppl wants.

Your still debating this point. I find it unbelievable that after all the well rounded arguments that has been brought to you that you still insist that Islam permits the rape of captives. I am really starting to believe that you are intentionally trying to deceive other people with your stance. Clearly you are in need of the truth so by the help of Allah (swt)and your sincere desire to learn the truth, your search 4 the truth will lead you to Islam.

You have still yet to refute my two posts earlier so I will post them again.

I wanted to bring up some of the points that you fail to see when I raise my points.

1. Nowhere in the hadiths does it say that the companions FORCED the women into sex. All it says is that the Companions HAD sex with their captives.

That leaves open two possibilities. First, the companions forced the captives into sex, and second, they had consensual sex, meaning that there was no rape involved.

Because the hadith does not explicitly say whether the captives were forced into sex or not, that leaves us to make assumptions over the limited information we have. Let me bring up the hadith you posted earlier to show what I mean:

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

Now what does the hadith say. It says that some companions were absent from their wives and therefore HAD sex with their captives. Again, we are not given any explicit statement of non consensual or forced sex in the hadiths. You are just inferring from the hadith that rape had occured when there was no evidence. Let me use an analogy here. Lets say God forbid (this is only an example, nothing meant here) you were accused of rape and you were standing in trial. The persecutor tells the judge that you had sex with so and so at some time. Lets also assume for the sake of this analogy that the "victim" was not alive to reveal whether she had been raped. After proving you had sex with the "victim", lets say that the jury had seen enough and sentenced you to life in prison. Was that a fair sentence, of course not. What the jury had failed to recognize was that the persecutor had failed to show that you FORCED her into sex. They only showed that you HAD sex with the "victim". But remember the two possibilities that are still left open. There is a possibility that she agreed to have sex with you in which case that would not be rape. That is exactly what you are doing with the hadith. You are failing to show FORCED sex or rape.

As I pointed out earlier, although this does not prove that rape with captives is not allowed, we see what Islam sees rape as. As evident from the hadith I posted earlier, the man who raped the women was sentenced to death for what he did. This clearly shows that according to Islam, rape is a serious crime right up there with murder. After all, if rape was not looked upon as a major sin, that man surely would not have been sentenced to death by the prophet (pbuh). Again, I know this was not a captive who was raped, but this hadith gives us a general layout of how Islam views rape.

3. Now this point is critical. How does Islam view slaves. As I pointed out many times before, in Islam, slaves ARE NOT to be beaten, overworked, forced into prostitution. And slaves ARE to be fed from what we eat, clothed from what we cloth, and treated them as if they are our brothers. The prophets last words to the muslims was to fear Allah (swt) concerning their slaves. This point is absolutely critical because when we take all that into account, it would be beyond ridiculous to say that someone who had given so many rights to slaves would allow them to be raped. I mean, do you really think the prophet (pbuh) would have said "Hey, you can rape them all you want, but remember not to beat them or overburden them, treat your slaves like your own brother for Allah (swt) is watching you." I call you searchfortruth to be fair when examining the hadiths. I generally do not know if you are intentionally trying to misrepresent the hadith or if you are mistaken but I have shown my case. Now, please do not resort to name calling for I'm not interested in returning or engaging in insults. Lets have a professional discussion as brothers in humanity for this topic is very important, or else I would not have commented on it so many times. Thanks.

Let me make things clear now. When I posted the hadith on the muslim non-captive being raped, the purpose was to show that rape is considered a sin in Islam. The person I was responding to said that "Rape does not exist as a sin in Islam." My post showed otherwise. I rightly said in my earlier post that the Quranic verse (24:33) is speaking about forcing maids into prostitution. My point on the verse is that if you are not even allowed to force your slaves into prostitution, than you sure cannot rape them. Now, you and other members hold that rape is considered a sin in Islam unless the rape is done to captives, slaves. There is no evidence in the hadith of the captives having sex with the muslim companions WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Everytime you bring a narration, all it established is that muslim men had sex with their captives. It does not say whether the women disagreed with it. Now your next move is called appealing to emotions. You say why would a captive want to have sex with their captors. You then assume that because of this, they must have raped their slaves. What you fail to see is that by holding this position, you not only condemn Islam, but you also condemn the God of the Old Testament. Here is a prime example:

Deut. 21:10-14

"When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive,And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife -Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and do her nails,And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her, and remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a for month, and after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her, and she shall be your wife.And if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her."

Lets examine this shall we using search for truths criteria. According to you, because there is no way on earth a captured woman would want to have sex with their captor, than the sex would be rape. Now, the biblical passage says that the men cannot immediately have sex with their captors, rather, they would have to wait a month before they can engage in such an act. But who is to say that after a month that all of a sudden the women would be dying to have sex with their captors. What difference does one second, minute, or month make searchfortruth. The verse does not explicitly mention (just like the hadiths you point out) as to whether the sex is consensual,therefore it would be safe to assume that using YOUR CRITERIA, God almighty allowed rape in the bible.

Here are a few of my posts against search for truth. I'm sure he will just resort to insults and he will just re-post some hadiths that are just utterly irrelevant so maybe someone else should rebut my posts.

Osama: Posting here and running away from me in other topics I see. Why do you respond to me, but then keep running from me the very minute I point out your dishonesty (1 Chron 5:5, Song of Solomon) and slanders?

Its kind of funny, usually when reading historical sources a "historian" has to be very careful, "who wrote the text". Usually the author, especially in ancient times (when writing material was rare) has an intention to put something in the light, he wishes. For roman texts for example, the author usually tries to show how superb and good the roman empire is. So it is very important to try and get texts from both sides, which is very difficult, the further you go back in history.The muslim writers are writing from a muslim perspective, so we have to read those texts with that in mind. They want to make islam look good. And with trying to make islam look good, they write about having sex with female captives!? It wouldnt be a wonder, if they would even write, that all women wanted to have sex with all muslims, just because they are muslim. ITS PROPAGANDA!So any muslim (at least those here in the blog) will now say those texts are godly inspired, or like the Quran "the word of god" and so they have to be true ... that argument doesnt count for a scientific debate! Otherwise you would have to cite Nadir Ahmed “The debate is over”. Both sides have to agree on a common ground of debate and that cannot be, that the Quran is the word of god, in case of a scientific debate – not even a religious debate … because only the muslims accept that! Both sides must be able to view the argumentation from the other side. As a Christian we have to accept, that muslim think the Quran is the word of god, that helps to understand the arguments they are bringing forth. On the other hand the muslims have to try to understand the Christian arguments from our viewpoint! The problem is … there will never be a historical-critical way of thinking in the muslim world, as long as the Quran is seen as only the true word of god and not as a historical text. Well, back to topic…Reading those texts in the context of other texts from that period, you have to think about, why do they mention taking slaves, having sex with them and stuff like that? It was totaly ok for the muslims of those times - they were not ashamed of it and so they wrote it down. But they would certainly not write about RAPE! Because rape has a negative meaning and it was not "rape" in our modern sense and certainly not RAPE in their own thinking, because it was totally legal to do so!

Lets get back to the romans, so the muslims dont feel offended.A roman soldier, that plunders a germanic village and "rapes" some of the women, wouldnt feeled like "raping" them ... for him it would have been totally legit to do so, it would have been his "right" to do so and so it would not have been "rape" for him, cause it would imply something illegal! It was the right of the victor to do so. He would probably even have complained about it, if his officer would have forbidden it! Now back to the muslims -> We all agree, that it is allowed to take slaves in islam and have sex with them. From the muslim point of view this is not "RAPE", even if the victim feels like being raped!! It is sanctioned by the islam to do so and because it is legal, you would never find the word RAPE in this case. Further, the authors of the texts, would not want to make islam look bad ( ... muslims will say, those texts just say the truth, but those texts are just as political influenced as any other text, especially in those times), so they will write about "bad" things, to make them look not that bad, when they cant avoid to write about them. The fact, that you read about Slaves and having sex with them, shows, that it was a thing that happened so much, that the authors had to write about it and couldnt ignore it.Ah and as it was mentioned above by a muslim, something like “they were not married anymore”. Oh yeah? Because in Islamic law the marriage is nullified when becoming a slave … so now you can have sex with them and marry them and it is legal! But do you seriously think, that those women agreed with it? They had to, they were slaves, but they were certainly not happy about it. The marriage was nullified by force! So it may be legal for the muslims, but for the non-muslims it is a different thing!But now for the Christians – that’s the way the muslims think. It IS legal to do so. The marriage is nullified, everything is fine. You don’t brake a law (in islam) by doing so. And as the Quran is the word of god, you cannot argue against it, as long as the muslims believe this. So yeah, the debate is actually over at the point, where one side will NEVER move even a bit off their position, even if they are proven wrong by the other side.Maybe it gets a bit more clear from a different perspective. If it would be legal in the US to have sex with certain women against their will, would the law text have the word “rape” in it? NO, because rape is a crime and cannot be part of a law. The text would say “it is allowed to have sex with those women”, otherwise the text would condemn itself! So are the muslim seriously expecting the word RAPE in a muslim text about this issue? The interesting thing would be a source from the other side anyway. Has anybody access to jewish or roman, Christian sources about that issue? If the victims feeled like being raped, this sex with slaves is RAPE. Are there any sources for this?

I'm perplexed, I've read this blog over the last 2 years or so and I have not seen one example where a muslim has won an argument or even give a substantive coherent rebuttal. Almost to a man (or woman) they resort to personal abuse in place of argument (personal abuse + a good rebuttal is one thing but plain personal abuse is embarrassing and lets everyone know they have run out of ideas).

I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised, in their heyday when communism and fascism dominated many regions of the world, had blogs been around, I guess their arguments would been destroyed as swiftly as islamists' arguments are today. Within totalitarian world views there is no tradition of debating (from a rational position at least) so when faced with a people who wish to engage they appear completely clueless. It's not even like the African guerilla leader or dictator thing in the 70's - a tv journalist would ask a probing question to a leader and would get a ridiculous comical response it doesn't happen today (much) - leaders come from more open societies, but muslims are stuck with an ideology that is rotten to its core (bits about being nice to other muslims is irrelevant- even Nazi's were nice to each other - look a the Hitler youth).

The debate about the willingness or otherwise of slave women is such a classic example of what I have been talking about.

To any rational person using an example of a willing slave girl to rebut the argument that Islam condones rape speaks volumes. You know, I'm not even sure you see the fallacy of your own argument - perhaps you do - which is why you resort to personal abuse - there's some hope for you yet, maybe.

Reading this reminded me of a post I wrote a couple months ago talking about how Muslim boys were sexual abusing Hindu girls and to get people to stop complaining they begin to kidnap them, sexually assault them and then force convert the Hindu girls.

PEACE OF OUR LORD BE WITH YOU ALL IN JESUS NAME AMEN.pro Osama BUFFOON Abdulllah You are one of the greatest deceiver ever seen in my life. Just wondering when are you going to tell me in which well is the sun going to set today. But i do understand why you lie so much; your evil quran recommends you to. If allah can say "MAYBE" Sura 15 first word first of aya 2, then what can one expect from you . You are totally blind in such a way that only YAHWEH can save you. One day I'm sure you will tell us that you also saw the setting place of the sun. Last time you asked Dr. David to organize a debate at ABN. Do you think you can him as your stepping stone to be known? It is a mistake because your level of reasoning needs researchers to investigate it in the laboratory.

Let's not be confused about the definition of "rape" in English. The Muslims here are trying to restrict the definition of rape so as to avoid the question about forms of rape beyond physical compliance (See dictionary.com definition of "rape").

E.g. The story of the early Romans stealing the wives of the Sabines and forcing them into marriage with them is still called "the RAPE of the Sabines." This is allowed in Islam when a woman is taken as property, but no actual marriage is required. What's the difference between a wife and a slave? The wife is not forced to comply, but the slave is! Sexual slavery by its very definition is inherently rape! Islam allows rape. There is no way around this!

As for saying that the Islamic sources MUST allow the physical form of rape (and you can't infer that it doesn't in ALL cases because of a passage that talks only of normal circumstances - fornication, or sex under normal circumstances, is itself forbidden), that is absolutely and invalid argument. That's like saying if A or B, then C. Not A. Therefore, not C.

I will leave others to debate the extent to which rape is allowed in Islam and the relevance to the rape committed in the article originally posted. However, there is no doubt that it is explicitly permitted in at least SOME form.

Muslim: Well, Mohammad and his companions captured/kidnapped women and had sex with them, but it wasn’t rape folks. The kidnapped women consented to have sex with Mo.

Phillip Gurrido kidnapped Jaycee Dugard and had sex with her, but claimed it wasn’t rape.The Judge sentenced him to 431 years imprisonment.

Mitchell kidnapped Elizabeth Smart and had sex with her, but claimed it wasn’t rape. The Judge sentenced him to life in prison.

To any unbiased observer, Mo was a rapist. However, Muslims are terrified of Allah roasting them over a fire for all eternity if they condemn Mo, so they suspend reason to fabricate excuses to defend the crimes of Mo.

Please Muslims, try to argue as 21st century civilized people.The problem I find in Muslims' reasoning is, they are still leaving in the 7th century arabia. SHAME!

Just to comment on few of CallingChristians.com comments:

How are two adults having consensual relations, forced sex or rape? This is what I do not understand. You Christians read one word and then claim another. Show me where RAPE is allowed. Sex is allowed, but where is RAPE allowed?

(And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation. (No mention of asking permission from what you possess.)"

Doesn't need for it to ask permission, the Qur'an already gives that directive.

And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy ( no mention of asking for consent)"

All of these quotes are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with rape. Women don't go around saying "YES, STICK IT INSIDE OF ME", I don't see where that is a law either. So if you expected that, you must still be a virgin or must be very socially inept.

"Shall I go on? Now tell me your the new and greatest scholar of Islam and all of the previous ones and the Sahih hadith are incorrect. There is no mention of asking consent. And you dont ask a possession for permission to do something."

I still see nothing saying RAPE is permissible. Where is RAPE permissible or a virtue?

ARE YOU SERIOUS?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

(And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) of captives, EVEN IF THEY HAVE HAVE HUSBANDS IN THE ABODE OF WAR, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation. (No mention of asking permission from what you possess.)

And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; SAVE WHAT YOUR RIGHT HANDS OWN, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, EVEN IF THEY SHOULD HAVE SPOUSES among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy ( no mention of asking for consent).

- I feel sorry for their ignorance because they eventually will go to hell for that.

- I feel angry sometimes because of no matter how much you try to explain to them, they still come back and talk about the things you have explained to them previously.

- I sometimes smile at their ignorance and the way they keep on lying to themselves without realizing it (If they don't use "taqqiya", but even if they do, how do they live in lies like that knowing that they are lying to themselves?).

I pray that the Lord will touch they heart and give them a heart of flesh and take away those stony hearts of theirs. In Jesus Name. Amen.

..you were accused of rape and you were standing in trial. The persecutor tells the judge that you had sex with so and so at some time. Lets also assume for the sake of this analogy that the "victims" were alive to reveal whether she had been raped. After proving you had sex with the "victims", lets say that the jury had seen enough and sentenced you to life in prison. Was that a fair sentence? What the jury had failed to recognize was that the persecutor had failed to show that you FORCED her into sex. They only showed that you HAD sex with the "victims". But remember the two possibilities that are still left open. There is a possibility that she agreed to have sex with you in which case that would not be rape. That is exactly what you are doing with the hadith. You are failing to show FORCED sex or rape.

Would these men have been prosecuted in an Islamic state? From these comments it looks as though they would not have been given a second glance and even applauded for what they put those girls through.

.."although this does not prove that rape with captives is not allowed, we see what Islam sees rape as."

"Nowhere in the hadiths does it say that the companions FORCED the women into sex. All it says is that the Companions HAD sex with their captives."

This can be seen as condoning what the Muslims did to the under age girls in the head article. They were not forced into having sex but they were their captives.

"That leaves open two possibilities. First, the companions forced the captives into sex, and second, they had consensual sex, meaning that there was no rape involved."

So you're saying the judgment against them was wrong?

How's this sound?

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some infidel young girls; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter"

@samartarDid you not read later on to the verses that if you are not pleased wither you have to set her free? lets play a little scenario. I married her and she does not happy with me and does not want to have sex with her. Of course that would cause a tension between me and her and therefore i would be displease therefore i would set her free therefore the rape did not occur

@ Samatar I refuted every single one of these lies and logical fallacies.

And they are not insults when I use adjectives that accurately describe you and your tactics.

I already proved that 24:33 has nothing to do with forcing your right hand possessions into sex with yourself. It is about making them prostitute for you to earn income! You are a LIAR! And you will just ignore the evidence and except only your reinterpretation.

* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

Then the following was revealed about 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and his host because they used to force their female slaves to commit adultery in order to earn money from them and have more slaves as result of the children they bore as a consequence, and so Allah forbade them from doing this and made such an act forbidden: (Force not your slave girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world) from what they earn from working as prostitutes and also from the children they give birth to, (if they would preserve their chastity) if they want to remain chaste. (And if one force them) and if one force these slave girl to commit adultery, (then (unto them), after their compulsion) and repentance, (Lo! Allah will be Forgiving) He forgives them, (Merciful) and He will show mercy towards them after they die.

[al-Nisa’ 4:3] What is meant by “or (slaves) that your right hands possess” is slave women whom you own.And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammaat (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khaal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khaalaat (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”[al-Ahzaab 33:50]“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers” [al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]Al-Tabari said:Allaah says, “And those who guard their chastity” i.e., protect their private parts from doing everything that Allaah has forbidden, but they are not to blame if they do not guard their chastity from their wives or from the female slaves whom their rights hands possess.Tafseer al-Tabari, 29/84Ibn Katheer said:Taking a concubine as well as a wife is permissible according to the law of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him). Ibraaheem did that with Haajar, when he took her as a concubine when he was married to Saarah.Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/383And Ibn Katheer also said:The phrase “and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you” [al-Ahzaab 33:50] means, it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty. He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both.Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/500The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is permissible.Ibn Qudaamah said:There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”

[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah was the umm walad (a slave woman who bore her master a child) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and she was the mother of Ibraaheem, the son of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), of whom he said, “Her son set her free.” Haajar, the mother of Isma’eel (peace be upon him), was the concubine of Ibraaheem the close friend (khaleel) of the Most Merciful (peace be upon him). ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) had a number of slave women who bore him children, to each of whom he left four hundred in his will. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) had slave women who bore him children, as did many of the Sahaabah. ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad and Saalim ibn ‘Abd-Allaah were all born from slave mothersAl-Mughni, 10/441Al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses.Al-Umm, 5/43.The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.And Allaah knows best.Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wifeIslam Q&A, Fatwa No. 10382, November 24, 2005

SAMATAR YOU ARE LIVING A LIE! No where does it say that it has to be consensual, or you have to ask what you own for permission! You are a LIAR!

I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: “Give me that girl.” (Sahih Muslim 4345)

"I had not yet disrobed her" Where does it say I had not yet had consensual adulterated sex with her yet?

Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariah to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, "Bismillahi Allahu Akbar" are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become "Halaal" and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes "Halaal" merely through 'possession' which substitutes for the slaughtering.In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.Recently I saw a question on the status of women taken as prisoners during JihadMufti Ebrahim Desai, Ask-Imam, Fatwa No. 10896

This distinguishes between a marriage contract and a possession! YOU LIVE A LIE! And Osama is a LIAR!

And the hadith you continue to appeal to. Is because the Muslim man did not wait the iddat period. Because everything else points to the fact that they are your possession. And that by the sole act of capturing a woman Islam ordains forced divorce, recognized only by the Muslims,. the people married dont believe their divorced. Thats a whole other EVIL!.So a Muslim man captures a non Muslim woman., and Satan (ALLAH) considers it a divorce by virtue of capture and then they are the Muslim mans POSSESSION! And you can do as you choose with your possession! And here is another hadith that you ignore the significance of !

Narrated Anas bin Malik:Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,"O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

@ Osama I already proved that women are less then men. And just because you deny it's existence does not mean it doesnt exist.

And this also proves that a non Muslim person, male or female are less than a Muslim!

Narrated Anas bin Malik:Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,"O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

1. Nowhere does it say they had to ask for consent to have sex with those whom thy right hand possesses.

That leaves two possibilities. it was consensual, or it was force.

Now was the divroce between the two non Muslim captives forced o9r did they want the divorce?

Just answer this question.

You already admitted that islam destroys families by virtue of capture. In other words Allah is so evil, so bigoted, and so hateful of the non Muslims that he permits Muslims to divorce the couple by proxy.

So Allah divorces the married couple and then they become property. Now do you ask your possessions if you can use them?

Of course not! They are your possession!

When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards. Now, the country that I entered and took captive its men and women--does it not also have money, gold, and silver? Is that not money? When I say that jihad--offensive jihad--with the well-known conditions that I already mentioned from the hadith of the Prophet (PBUH), from the hadith of Burayda in Sahih Muslim, the coffers of the Muslims were full. Would someone who is pious and intelligent--would he say that this is a type of poverty? Or that it is a type of wealth? No--this will fill the coffers of the Muslims with riches and wealth, but as we said, with the recognized conditions."When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her"Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni, al-Hikma TV, May 22, 2011

Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariah to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, "Bismillahi Allahu Akbar" are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become "Halaal" and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes "Halaal" merely through 'possession' which substitutes for the slaughtering.In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.Recently I saw a question on the status of women taken as prisoners during JihadMufti Ebrahim Desai, Ask-Imam, Fatwa No. 10896

Now you are either going to accept the facts, or you can continue to be selective and not be a true Muslim.

I never said this. But when a woman is in fear for her life, and has no other alternative then to comply, be beaten, murdered, or abused. Then it is rape. Even if they comply reluctantly it is rape. And if you dont understand this, Islam has done more damage to your heart and soul then I imagined. And you saying two adults having consensual sex is a logical fallacy. One was in the position of power. The other is a captured woman who is fear of losing her life. After all she already lost much of her tribe, all of her property, and her freedom. So that is a logical fallacy.

So tell me are you against two non married adults having consensual sex? Or how about both of them being married but by virtue of being captured the capture doesnt acknowledge the marriage of the captured woman?

Where and how is this woman in a position of saying no? Can she say no to the divorce that is being forced upon her? If she cannot say no to the divorce then how can she say no to the rape?

All of these are logical fallacies. Or are you selective in that as well? These two hadith reveal that the victim and the capture can both be married. And what is the difference between what I said and you said about wanting to know the verdict? LOL! Another logical fallacy! And isnt it funny that Muslims cant find one single comment about asking for consent, when we know how many rocks Mohamed used to wipe is butt?

"Abu Sa’id al-Khudri said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."Abu Dawud 2:2150

"Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Interruptus Coitus - Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born."Sahih Muslim 8:3371

Rape and/or sexual assault is forced, manipulated, or coerced sexual contact by a stranger, friend or acquaintance. It is an act of aggression and power combined with some form of sex. A person is forced into sexual contact through verbal coercion, threats, physical restraint, and/or physical violence. Consent is not given.

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. A person who commits an act of rape is known as a rapist. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.[1][2][3][4] The term is most often defined in criminal law.[2][4]

Adultery (also called philandery, anglicized from Latin adulterium) is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than the lawful spouse. Religious and legal interpretations of what constitutes adultery varies widely.

World English Dictionaryadultery (əˈdʌltərɪ)

— n , pl -teriesvoluntary sexual intercourse between a married man or woman and a partner other than the legal spouse

di·vorce (d-vôrs, -vrs)n.1. The legal dissolution of a marriage.2. A complete or radical severance of closely connected things.v. di·vorced, di·vorc·ing, di·vorc·esv.tr.1. To dissolve the marriage bond between.2. To end marriage with (one's spouse) by way of legal divorce.3. To cut off; separate or disunite: an idea that was completely divorced from reality

In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her.

I think part of the problem with debating rape is that the Muslim concept of consent is different from a Westerner's.

I think Mohammed honestly assumed that when a person consented, that was consent, end of story. A Westerner would say that there are times when consent is not consent.

Duress invalidates consent. If you only consent because someone is holding a gun to your head, but you would have refused otherwise, that is not consent.

Minsinformation invalidates consent. If you think you are agreeing to one thing, but it turns out to be another, that is not consent.

Incapacity invalidates consent. If you are asleep, insane, intellectually disabled or below a certain age, that invalidates your "consent" to all kinds of activities.

The Rochdale girls were too young to give real consent to sexual activity. They consented without understanding that they were being drawn into prostitution. They consented under duress, because they were afraid of what the gang would do if they said no. They failed to resist because they were too drunk to say anything. And so on. By Western standards, this is not consent.

But the Rochdale rapists were culturally conditioned to believe that none of this counted. First, if the girl said yes under any circumstance, they probably assumed that this constituted consent. Second, they had also been conditioned to believe that once they had "captured" a girl, her consent was not necessary. The fact of the capture gave them the "right" to use her.

This may explain why Mohammed did not perceive himself as a rapist. After all, there were some women whom he did not touch, simply because they refused him! He didn't seem to have any understanding at all that some of the women whom he took under duress had not given free consent.

(1) Ayesha. She didn't even know about the marriage contract to which she was a party. She only realised she was "married" to Mohammed when she was locked up with him for the consummation. Since she always stated that she loved Mohammed and was proud to be his wife, he understood her to have "consented". But she was only eight years old. How could that qualify as consent?

(2) Rayhana. Mohammed executed her husband, and she vowed never to remarry. Did she change her mind about this vow? On the same day, Mohammed proposed to her and she refused. When she compromised by agreeing to be his concubine, was that because she chose concubinage ... or because he never gave her a third option? To clarify: Rayhana was only a Qurayziya by marriage; she had been born a Nadir. The Nadir tribe were still alive in Khaybar and were desperately trying to buy back every Qurayza woman and child they could locate on the slave-markets. They would certainly have "bought" Rayhana too if only Mohammed had set her for ransom.

(3) Juwayriya. On the same day the Muslims killed her husband, Mohammed offered her this choice: Be the concubine of Thabit b Qays (whose first wife had already divorced him for domestic violence) or marry me. When Juwayriya preferred Mohammed to Thabit, that was "consent"! Mohammed did not offer her an option on her original request, that of returning home to her parents, who were willing to pay any ransom for her.

(4) Jamila was a war-captive who became Mohammed's concubine. We don't know in which war he captured her or what happened to her after he lost interest. But did she "consent"? If she did, she was an idiot (not capable of consenting), for he offered her ridiculous terms. "I slay your kinsmen in the battle and make you a slave. I sleep with you for a few weeks, when I can be bothered to spare the time from my official wives. After I'm bored with you, I'll either set you to unpaid labour or turn you out like a beggar - I haven't decided yet."

(5) Mariya. She was as "present" from the governor of Egypt, passed from one powerful man to another. Did she consent to travel from Egypt to Arabia? No, she had no choice. Did she consent to domestic service for Mohammed's household? No, she had no choice. Did she consent to committing adultery on Hafsa's bed? Well, what would have been the consequence if she had displeased the master by refusing?

(6) Safiya. On the same day that Mohammed had murdered her husband, she refused outright to sleep with him. She gave no reason whatsoever for her refusal, not even that she was menstruating (which it appears she was). Mohammed was outraged and amazed, but he allowed her to sleep alone.

The next night, Safiya did not refuse to sleep with Mohammed. She told him stories about dreaming of the moon, having her face slapped, and that she had resisted his advances last night because she was afraid of the Jews.

How much of this conversation did Safiya invent to endear herself to Mohammed and hence save her skin? Years later, she did make a statement that might in fact have been her real reason for refusing Mohammed on the first night.

I hated Allah's Messenger more than any man in the world because he had killed my husband, my father and my brother. (Bayhaki 4:230)

So did her feelings for Mohammed change in just 24 hours? Or did she decide that, since nothing could bring her husband back, she might as well develop a strategy of compliance and flattery in order to save her own skin? The latter scenario would not constitute consent in any sense that a Westerner accepted.

Diana said: I think part of the problem with debating rape is that the Muslim concept of consent is different from a Westerner's.

Diana, your observation is duly noted.

And when the roles are reversed—that is, the rapist being say, an American or Israeli soldier and the victim being a Muslim woman—Muslims understand the true concept of rape and consent.

RM said: If I was to kill you, your father and your brothers in war would you mother, sister, wife, daughter want to have sex with me either that night or a few nights later? If not could you explain why?

Again, when the roles are reversed, Muslims understand very well the true concept of rape and consent.

Samatar, remember you promised you had some free time in MAY and would E-mail me for THE DEBATE. If you have time to interact with everyone here you have time to DEBATE like you said you would.

Now Samatar has made an interesting point about the verse not mentioning CONSENSUAL or RAPE. And that's because Samatar your prophet DID NOT MAKE A DISTINCTION between CONSENSUAL and FORCED, he PERMITTED SEX with CAPTIVES PERIOD, whether it was consensual OR forced. Read Surah 4:24. There is no qualification or condition "except what your right hand possesses" is a categorical statement saying ANYTHING your right hand possesses. The terms that you come up with like "consensual and forced" are AD HOC to the verse, not to mention a complete anachronism of post modern apologetics.

So nice try to evade and cover up with smoke screens.

By the way the example from Deuteronomy doesn't work with secularists. We condemn Deuteronomy and we condemn the Quran. But thankfully I have not heard of any Jewish rape gangs, raping the inferior gentile woman, no that is a Muslim activity. If you decide to come back and say "but how would we know what is right or wrong without God", I have already posted the links refuting that claim in previous correspondence with you. WLC was utterly refuted, Carrier advocated argument for naturalistic objective morality, Austin Cline also argued morality without God.

In other words you have no reason to accept the Quran or the Bible.

Which is why our debate will be entitled "There is no good reasons to accept Islam", or "There is no good reason to accept Theism".

Samatar make sure to keep your word, it's time to come to the rational side and join the secularists ( agnostics, atheists, humanists, secular humanists etc).

Samatar you will make a good agnostic, it's time to you be honest with yourself and show up to the ring with me, so we can help you move pass this nonsense.

Derek....you're as confused as Samatar. I've read the so called "refutation" Of Dr Craig you speak of. Regardless of whether you're impressed with such nonesense, I would contend it doesnt equate to a "utter refutation" of Craig's arguements. You're not as impressive as you think you are.

One more thing. What exactly were those utterly irrelevant hadith you said that I posted? Thats an ad hominem and your entire argument is from observational selection. You cant and wont look at it in it's entirety. I and we have proved this at least six different times. And all you will do is continue to bring the same refuted arguments over and over. I am starting to think that once you realize it's not going your way you stop reading and then wait for the topic to come up again so you cant regurgitate the same refuted arguments! It's ridiculous!

Quote " Now, the biblical passage says that the men cannot immediately have sex with their captors, rather, they would have to wait a month before they can engage in such an act."

No that is not what Deuteronomy says at all. it says they have to MARRY them. You are misrepresenting what it says. It doesnt speak about sex. It says MARRIAGE!

See your a LIAR! Now it doesnt say you can force the woman to marry you. It just says that you must wait at minimum ONE MONTH before you can MARRY Them!

Se3e what a liar you are? You go out of your way to rationalize married Muslims raping married non Muslim female captives. And then you go out of your way to misrepresent what Deuteronomy says as well. Why? Because your a Muslim and your incapable of objective reasoning. I will post Deuteronmy and you show me where it says to have sex. And then I will wait fgor you to admit your a LIAR!

11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

"then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife"

You MAY go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It says nothing about forcing her, or sex.

IT IS MARRIAGE!And a month is the minimum. That way she has some time to mourn and get to know you. Maybe it would take a year. But a Month is the minimum!

It's interesting you are kinda preaching to Samatar, but i want to do a question, and it has no hidden motive, and it's this one: why do you care about (in example) leaving Christianity and becoming Atheist? i mean, when i preach someone about Christ, i do it because i want that person to go to heaven, but why do you care if i live my life following Christ's phylosophy? in the end we will just desappear when we die, so i don't see the point of trying to make me believe in your phylosophy, as i said i really wanna know what moves you, i don't pretend to make a debate about this since it's off topic.

Samatar is continuing to have us believe that rape has to be spelled out within the text in order for rape to have occurred, or that since the text doesn't specify it, it is therefore, the actions that do appear as being rape, aren't really rape. Consent is implied since the text doesn't specify rape.

Well, Samatar, it should be obvious that if it isn't presented as rape within the text, it will not be seen as such. As I have stated many times before, people captured are not likely to consent without coercion, which is the foundation of what rape is. Since a slave is in a subordinate position and is considered property, it is highly unlikely that they will not concede to their superiors since the chance of penalty is much greater than if they were on an equal level of authority, which they aren't. If they could reject without threat of any kind, then I am more likely to allow your position to have some weight.

As I have stated many times to you, the true test of your position comes when reversing the roles and allowing for Muslims to be placed in the same position. I know that when this is considered, you will easily see the problem and be willing to understand the issue properly. I know that you know in the back of your mind that there is an issue with capturing women (or anyone) and then having sex with them when you consider that they are 1) captured, which means that they are unwillingly taken and 2) they are then stripped of their rights are are reduced to slaves who are considered as other than equal in the eyes of the Muslim.

Rape involves coercion, intimidation, subordination, humiliation and many other negatives that when compared to to openly consensual people (both being able to reject without penalty or fear of any kind), doesn't allow such openness and freedom. Why? Because slaves are at the mercy of their superiors. They don't have equal footing as their superiors. I know that you know that, but refuse to acknowledge it for fear of undermining your prophet and religion. Your religion causes you to have to abandon sound logic and reasoning.

As someone has mentioned, the captive had no choice when she was captured as to whether she wanted her marriage to her husband annulled. Her husband had no power to disapprove either; so, where does this leave the sexual advance by the captor? Is this not a pattern of their being no way to refuse the Islamic dictates of captivity? Why would a captive want to have sex with her captor when she had no choice in the annulment of her marriage and her subordination to her captor? Don't these issues sound an alarm as to the sincerity of any presumed consent? Who would want to consent to captivity in the first place? Do you think that if there was no captivity that the women would eagerly go to have sex with those men? I think not.

Just another little thing I found for people who want to deflect by saying that the Bible can be seen as condoning what these guys did to the girls as well:

Exodus 21:16 (NET Bible):"Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death."

And compare this to the mandate in the Qur'an to fight unbelievers (Which could technically make the girls captives of war and therefore OK to press them into sexual slavery in Islam if the Muslim sees himself as really at war with the west):

Exodus 22:21:"You must not wrong a foreigner nor oppress him, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt."

So that, along with the previous verse brought up about the prerequisite of marriage for sexual relations (ironically by Samatar), pretty much explains why, "I have not heard of any Jewish rape gangs, raping the inferior gentile woman, no that is a Muslim activity." If these guys were ancient Israelites under Mosaic Law...

I hope the Muslims here don't try to deflect again. I'm surprised if these kinds of tricks even work in the internet age. You can just do a keyword search of the relevant verses.

Christo, I believe Islam is a false religion, based on irrationality, ignorance and violence. Hence in order for humanity to progress as a whole, we need to outgrow superstition, ignorance and backward violence. Like Santa Claus and his child disciples, I believe in being good for goodness sake. Not because after death I will be rewarded. It appears to me as usual, like every other Theist you only believe life has purpose because you believe in an after life. But you need to think more. This would entail no life except human life has purpose, since humans are the one who are granted paradise, not other living creatures. But this of course this means there can be purpose for animals even without an after life they still live, breath, function and enjoy life. It's also possible there is a God and there is no after life, it's also possible there is an after life but no God.

But more specifically if you would trust in your Bible, you would know that you should not behave morally because of an after life, since you don't know if there is one, but be happy in your happiness for this is your alloted time:

16 Furthermore, I have seen under the sun that in the place of justice there is wickedness and in the place of righteousness there is wickedness. 17 I said [e]to myself, “ God will judge both the righteous man and the wicked man,” for a time for every [f]matter and for every deed is there. 18 I said [g]to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts [h]is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is [i]vanity. 20 All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. 21 Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth? 22 I have seen that nothing is better than that man should be happy in his activities, for that is his lot. For who will bring him to see what will occur after him?

Ecclesiastes 3

So please don't assume your conclusion, that we must exist eternally in order to have morality or purpose, in fact rather you should put forth arguments.

This is kind of off topic, but... What an interesting thing to quote. The teacher of Ecclesiastes didn't believe in an afterlife, and it starts out saying everything is basically meaningless.

But I think the point was not that life has no meaning without an afterlife. I don't think Christo was really saying that, but what purpose is there in calling people out of superstition? How do you define progress if everything is "dust in the wind" including you and me? How is getting people out of superstition progress to you? As my atheist friend puts it something like, "I'm just a small spec in the universe, and I don't think there's much of a point to trying to 'fix' the world." How is it different for you?

Dstewart. This will not be a nearly enough sufficient answer, but here are a few thoughts. Your friend sounds like either a nihilist or pessimist. You also missed the point, even IN Theism, "everything is meaningless" is true, after all the Author was himself a Theist. But like the author I understand we will turn to dust and so will everything else, this however does not inflict on my allotted happiness, nor of my family, descendants, friends and fellow humans brothers and sisters. In fact the belief I have that this is most likely the only life is the direct result of making this life optimal for all humanity, a great craving to shape and change the world. So the author does not view the two ideas as conflicting, neither do I.

But your friend is also looking at this falsely. He acts as if having moral responsibility was not a part of being human. But I doubt he is consistent, as everyday he probably carries out his binding duties that make him or those around him happy. The fact that he is not convicted to view Islam as a great moral evil to his fellow human being and doesn't have enough conviction means he does not truly believe anything can be immoral. If one of the greatest possible moral evils cannot be immoral, then what is moral? This contradicts his very own nature as a human being, as he is proclaiming one thing but living another way. He is already placing moral values and moral judgement in his very day life, he does what makes him content, yet if he learn't to serve others this would make him even more content.

And I honestly believe that taking Muslims out of Islam will actually produce benefit in human life, and those of the descendants or friends. I know so many Muslims that live in cognitive dissonance, it's literally torment. Relieving pain is a great responsibility and great duty, and serving others is also serving you, it's win/win.

"See the debate between David Wood and Ali Ataie where this question is addressed in detail. Safiyyah told her father of a dream she had of Muhammad {saw}, she told him he was going to be coming soon. She was mocked and beaten by her family. The Jewish leaders already conceded this was prophesied, he came and it all played out as the dream indicated.

I would like to think, running from an abusive family to someone you dreamt of as saving you is seeking asylum.

"No that is not what Deuteronomy says at all. it says they have to MARRY them. You are misrepresenting what it says. It doesnt speak about sex. It says MARRIAGE! "

Talk about an unbiased preservation huh. Do I really have to tell you that with marriage comes sex. Now you turn defensive and pretend that there would be no sex involved. Also, have you ever heard of forced marriage. See, your whole argument is that no person who suffered the loss of her brother, uncle, father, etc... would consent to having sex with their captor. That's your MAIN ARGUMENT. So if you are going to be consistent, than you will also say that clearly the captives described in the Old Testament would not consent to marriage with their captors. Also using your argument of appealing to emotions WHAT captive who lost their relatives to their captor would willingly marry this man for the purpose of becoming "one" with him and spending the rest of their lives with him. Like you said before a captive is a possession/prisoner and therefore have no rights whatsoever. The arguments that you are using against the hadiths can be made back more forcefully against your own scripture.

"Se3e what a liar you are? You go out of your way to rationalize married Muslims raping married non Muslim female captives. And then you go out of your way to misrepresent what Deuteronomy says as well. Why? Because your a Muslim and your incapable of objective reasoning. I will post Deuteronmy and you show me where it says to have sex. And then I will wait fgor you to admit your a LIAR!"

How many times have I said that USING YOUR CRITERIA, and if you are CONSISTENT, then you will condemn Deuteronomy as well as the hadiths. I never said that USING MY CRITERIA, Deutoronomy is to be condemned. I believe that we have no evidence in Deuteronomy that there was forced marriage or rape because we have no indication that they did not consent to the marriage. We are told that if the captor does not like her, he does not have to marry her, but the verse doesn't specify what would happen if the Captive did not like the captor. How am I a liar for pointing out your inconsistency?

Yeah I forgot about those verses. I had used them previously, but had completely forgotten them. Thanks.

I think now that we have no Muslim rebuttal we can safely move on and all come to the factual conclusion that Islam ordains rape of non Muslim female captives, even if they or the captive is married. And then Islam destroys families by forcibly divorcing the married couple by proxy, even though the couple may not see themselves as divorced.

And there is absolutly NO comparison between Deuteronomy 21 and the permission that they MAy get married after a Month and Islam which ordains rape of female captives after one menstrual cycle!

The end. Thats it Samatar. Unless you can refute the over whelming evidence you must admit it. Now do you know why I get so frustrated with you? I dont hate you, but I am human, and you are willfully ignorant!

"You MAY go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It says nothing about forcing her, or sex."

Exactly my point search4truth. This is why this passage is especially similar to the hadiths, there is no mention of consent. As you said " It says nothing about forcing her to sex". But that was my argument for the hadiths for so long now. The hadiths do not say whether they consented or not, therefore the only way to assume they would not consent would be to say that no captive in their right mind would agree to having sex with their captor. But I showed earlier that the very same argument can be used against Deutoronomy. But nonetheless, you use that same argument against the hadiths but never against the bible. You have a criteria against the hadith, and a very different criteria against the Bible. I wonder WHY?!

"IT IS MARRIAGE!And a month is the minimum. That way she has some time to mourn and get to know you. Maybe it would take a year. But a Month is the minimum!"

Now this is just ridiculous. You have been telling me for about six months now that no sane captive would want to engage in a relationship with their captor and now you tell me that the month is so "she can get to know you". You have been telling me for six months that a captive who had to endure the death of her relatives to this man, would never want anything to do with their captor. Now after a month, year, etc... she might reconsider her position. If you are going to tell me that captives can reconsider their position then why do you not consider that possibility with the hadiths. After all, isn't it possible that the captives of the muslim companions could agree to engaging in a relationship with their captors.

How are u=you using my criteria? LOL! OF COURSE with marriage comes sex.

But having sex without a marriage bond is not equal to waiting for marriage!

YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR FRICKEN MIND!

In Deuteronomy, they had to get married before consummating the relationship you MORON!

In Islam the women can already have been married and then Muslim men can already be married and then the Muslim men can rape the non Muslim female captives without consent

HOW IN YOUR LITTLE MIND DO YOU SEE THE SIMILARITIES?

YOU ARE SO BRAINWASHED THIS IS SCARY.

SO YOUR TRYING TO SAY THAT WAITING TO GET MARRIED AND THEN HAVING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, IS EQUAL TO TAKING A WOMAN CAPTIVE WHO IS ALREADY MARRIED, SEPARATING HER FROM HER FAMILY AND HUSBAND AND FORCING A DIVORCE BY PROXY ON THEM IS EQUAL TO GETTING MARRIED.

YOU HAVE LOST YOUR MIND!

No that is not my whole argument at all. You need to seek a psychiatrist immediately!

You are misrepresenting the entire argument. Did you read everything?

In Deuteronomy it says you MAy marry her. I have said this countless times. It doesnt say to force her to marry you. But it does say to wait at least a month and then you MAY marry her.

And We have already proved that in Islam there is NO act or order for Muslim men to get consent from the women.

Can she say no to the divorce? Of course not. They are divorced by proxy of being captured.

You are not using my criteris. Because my criteria is YOUR Islamic doctrine and scholars.

Did you read all of the evidence from YOUR Islamic doctrine and scholars?

I did not write those things! That comes from Islam.

You need to see a shrink ASAP!

The fact remains.

1. Islam ordains taking married female captives and divorcing them ( breaking up families) by way of capture (proxy)

2. The married couple cannot dispute the destruction of their marriage bond

3. they captures become property

4. In Deuteronomy they become wives

5. there is NO similarities between a wife and a capture, at least not in Judaism or Christianity! Islam yes. LOL!

6. In Islam the female captive cannot say no to adulteress sex with her capture because she is property. Read all of the evidence that was produced.

7. Islam says you can rape her after ONE menstrual period. That could be a day, or a month! If she is captured when she has her period and it ends the next day, she is lawful to RAPE!

8 Deuteronomy says you must let her mourn her family, get to know her. take care of her, bath her, cloth her and wait at least a month before marriage. That could be longer if she or they want to wait. But at least a month.

What dont you understand Samatar? Did you read all of the evidence that was provided?

You have no integrity at all. Your mind has been programmed to not think anything negative about Islam! You are suffering from cognitive dissonance. And my whole argument is not whether a woman will eventually want to have consensual sex with her capture. It is that Islam does not tell the Muslim man to wait for consent, Go read everything. You look INSANE!

Samatar is still trying to deflect to something that has no implications to anything relevant in the article even after I pointed out how it is explicit that anyone caught doing what these men did would be put to death in ancient Israel.

When there is war, there are captives. This is true of Ancient Israel as much as it is of today. Yes, captives DO have rights. Even slaves DO have protections. What the passage is really saying is that you may marry one. Your presupposition is demonstrably false even by Islamic standards. It is SLAVES who can't say no, and you must NOT treat her like a slave. The implication is that she can refuse marriage.

Search4Truth is right to point out the difference between sex and marriage. You pretend that because marriage is essentially a sexual contract that there is no distinction between sex as a captive/slave and sex as a wife. This is absurd. There was a lot of incentive for women in the ancient middle east to be married, but DISincentive to have sex with their captors even if just to remain a virgin until she DOES find a husband (Something that is important in the culture even to this day). The two are worlds apart.

Let me just also add that the same principle applies to the potential husband/male sex partner. What man would want to live under the same roof with a contentious wife? She'd be freed before not too long even if the marriage WAS forced. On the other hand, what is the cost to a captor for one night of fun?

And search for truth cannot go more than a few posts without insulting me again for the millionth time. I try my best to be respectful to you without engaging in child like insults but you still insult me. I understand things get heated but your not speaking to me face to face. Rather, your behind a keyboard where you can regain your composure and not hit send.

Islam says you can rape her after ONE menstrual period. That could be a day, or a month! If she is captured when she has her period and it ends the next day, she is lawful to RAPE!

And this is precisely what happened to Safiya. According to her lady-chaperon, who was surely in a position to know and certainly had no reason to lie, Safiya became clean from her menstruation just one day after her capture. So the chaperon combed her, perfumed her and sent her to Mohammed's tent.

This immediately raises the question: If Safiya was menstruating, why had she not said so to Mohammed on the previous day? What was weighing so heavily on her mind that when he asked: "Why won't you sleep with me?" she completely forgot that she had the perfect excuse, acceptable to both Jews and Muslims?

Maybe the fresh memory of her husband's mutilated corpse?

CallingChristians said:I would like to think, running from an abusive family to someone you dreamt of as saving you is seeking asylum.

Even if Safiya's family had been abusive, how was it "asylum" for her to run from one thug to another? A woman in that situation usually wants to avoid all close contact with men.

But I don't buy the story that Kinana (or her father, according to alternative sources) slapped her. She told the story in a context where we know she was telling other lies. She still didn't admit she had been menstruating, let alone that yesterday she had hated Mohammed. Instead, she concocted some story that she had been trying to save him from the vengeance of the Jews. Flattery much? She followed it up with a line about predictive dreams. Even if she had had nightmares about the "moon from Medina", did she really dream in advance of the fact that she would be Mohammed's bride? Or did she invent that story as an additional line of flattery? (Juwayriya later claimed to have had a similar dream just before her own capture, although she did not mention this until after she had heard Safiya's story.)

There is at least a chance that Safiya invented the slap story so that Mohammed would think her family had been abusive and hence not question her loyalty to himself.

The hadiths tell us that over the next twelve months, Safiya spent a lot of time crying. She wept when Hafsa remarked that she was Jewish. She wept when she read the Qur'an. She nearly had a nervous breakdown on the journey to the umra in March 629 because "her camel was too slow". Why was Safiya such a cry-baby? Could it be that she was in deep grief and never dared admit the real reason she was so upset?

Kinana and Safiya had been acquainted all their lives, but they did not marry until after Safiya's father and brother were dead. I infer from this that she married him voluntarily and that she didn't dislike him.

This was a society in which a woman's father, brothers and sons were more important than her husband. Safiya had also lost uncles and cousins to Mohammed's sword. She could have made a very long list of reasons why she hated Mohammed, any one of them sufficient. Yet her first reason for "hating" Mohammed was that he had killed her husband. Kinana came in ahead of her her father and brother; ahead of her favourite uncle (also executed in the Trenches); ahead of her brother-in-law and poor old grand-uncle who were executed alongside Kinana; ahead of Kaab ibn Asad and all her other uncles and cousins in the Qurayza tribe (her mother was a Qurayziya); ahead of Kaab ibn Al-Ashraf (her cousin), Abu Rafi (Kinana's uncle), Sallam b Mishkam (her first husband and another cousin) and Zaynab b Al-Harith (Sallam's second wife, killed just hours earlier for trying to poison Mohammed). If Safiya had accidentally omitted her husband from this list of murdered relatives, the average Arab wouldn't even have noticed. Yet her husband was the person whom Safiya named first.

Safiya bequeathed her estate to her sister's son - as far as we know, her only nephew. This boy's name was also Kinana.

— n , pl -teriesvoluntary sexual intercourse between a married man or woman and a partner other than the legal spouse

This is another example of an English word that is not a good translation of the Arabic concept.

The Arab definition of adultery is "sexual activity between a married woman and a man other than her husband". That is why it was important for Mohammed to decree that war-captives were automatically divorced.

Sexual activity between a married man and an unmarried woman was not considered adultery in the sense of a wrong to the man's wife - although it might be a crime against the woman's father or other owner. In the Arab mind, Ayesha had no case against Mohammed when she complained about Mariya. And when Zaynab b Jahsh presented Mohammed with one of her slave-girls, she was not complicit in her husband's adultery.

See also slander, which in English refers strictly to untrue statements, but in the Arab concept means all defaming remarks, even if true.

And I challenge you to show me ANYWHERE in ANY AUTHENTIC HADITH one INCIDENT OF RAPE.

You need to prove that your Religion knew about the CONCEPT of rape before you defend the idea that your religion didn't allow rape. You have not shown the concept of rape even existed. Give me ONE example of A Muslim violating the supposed rape law against captives. Forget Mohammed, ANY Muslim will be fine. Show the concept existed.

I would tell you the same thing to your face. Believe me. And I only use adjectives that accurately describe your positions and your character. I dont really care what you think of me. I am telling you exactly how I see it. i thought you were a liar and incapable of objective reasoning and critical thinking and lacked integrity. But maybe you are disconnected from reality. And actually do need psychiatric aid. If that is the case, which i am starting to believe then I do apologize. Because your ill.

Because no sane person could continue this argument after reading the overwhelming evidence against your position.

You only see what you want. Maybe it's just cognitive dissonance. But it seems more severe than that.

And you know that when we began these discussions over a year ago, i was very pleasant and cordial. But after proving the same thing at least six times, you are either one of two things. Mentally ill, or have no integrity. I will be very kind to someone who is mentally ill. But not to people who have no integrity.

I think you didn' udnerstand my question well, and maybe it's my fault since my english is not so good, i never said that I don't appriciate my current life, i do, it's a gift from God, and he wants me to live it the best i can, but he also wants me to be with him in the after life, so in order to achieve that i need Jesus in my life and thats why i follow Christ, and thats why i preach him to other ppl so they can be saved, and also so Jesus may help them to fix their lifes as i ve seen many times, including myself. And about Islam i can understand why you (an atheist) don't want ppl (muslim) to think they can kill you because you don't believe in Allah, but thats not my case, Jesus commands me to love you, since he loves you too, and as i said i just was wondering i don't need to get into a debate about this, i just wanted to know what moves you. Also i don't behave morally because an afterlife, my good deeds never will get me into heaven, if i could do that, Jesus would be totally unnecessary, in my case i do it because i love what Jesus did for me. Also i can't see any problem about putting my eyes into a place where i can live happy forever with God. And to finish you kinda said that you want to take ppl out from their "superstition", why would i be a better person if i reject Jesus? being Atheist is far away of being good person, there isn't even a code for atheists, it's just about what each one of you think is right or wrong, i have my code and it's called the Gospels, and i can't see how following this code can make me a worse man...

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).

You have to understand Samatar. It is so clear to everyone else. Not even other Muslims can counter the argument. Because in fact we are using Islam and Islamic scholars including recent fatwas as our evidence. It is so clear to everyone, but yourself. so it only can be two things. You are a liar and have no integrity, or you are ill. Because I dont think your stupid.

Christo said: "being Atheist is far away of being good person, there isn't even a code for atheists, it's just about what each one of you think is right or wrong, i have my code and it's called the Gospels, and i can't see how following this code can make me a worse man..."

Each Atheist has their own philosophy, the only thing Atheists do agree upon is the claim that they lack belief in a God and find no evidence of a God, and some Atheists say there are even arguments to show God cannot exist.

So since Atheism isn't a position on morality, why would you expect them to agree? The agreement isn't on morality, the agreement is on the existence of God.

Many Atheists are moral nihilists. This is their own unique concept and view. But I believe this view can be refuted. And I even leveled a few criticism and Destuwarts Atheist friend who can't live consistently with his own Nihilist belief system, and hence disproving it.

As for the whole "every Atheist invents their own morality", clearly this is utterly false. As it is a World View that determines an outlook on morality, and not a single belief or lack of belief. For example there could be an Atheist that believes good exists as an independent force in the universe, that goodness is made of "stuff". Clearly I would not agree with him, as I hold to secular humanism.

Now as for the question, why do I try to liberate people from superstition, since I've already given my thoughts here, go back and read them.

But the argument that without an infinite existence life could have no purpose and morality would be completely subjective is actually now refuted here:

"And I even leveled a few criticism and Destuwarts Atheist friend who can't live consistently with his own Nihilist belief system, and hence disproving it."

LOL. OK, NOW I see you were trying to disprove his view. However, it is ENTIRELY consistent for someone who believes that morality nothing more than herd instincts as a chance product of evolution affected by the environment of our ancestors and has no logical connection to what should or should not be to live according to that view (naturalistic fallacy?). I.e. even if morality has no meaning, there is no meaning in taking it away either. After all, it would be hard to argue that dogs discuss morality as we do, yet they live by their pack instincts (for all you dog owners). (BTW, for the record, my friend has expressed some liking of existentialist philosophy.)

I don't really notice atheists anywhere complaining at all about the systematic persecution and murder of people of other faiths being practiced by muslimes in the here and now. Instead, I hear, read and see, atheists bleating on and on about how all religions are the same and/or that all Abrahamic religions are equally evil ad nauseum. Of course, when you're amoral, nothing is evil.

I read a joke about an atheist meeting a rabbi, Catholic priest and imam on the street. The atheist came up to the rabbi and castigated him on the misogyny and homophobia in the Torah. He then went on to the Catholic priest and derided his church of pedophilia. He then warmly said hello to the iman and shook his hand.

Why don't the brave atheists take their faux morality play about religion to any muslime state? Because they're cowards.

It amazes me how you quote Ecclesiastes 3 to prove that there is NO after life.

You don't believe that there is GOD as well, right? But how many time did the writter of Ecclesiastes mention "God" in this very Chapter 3.

Have you read what he wrote in

Ecclesiastes 12:1, 7, 13-14, "Remember now thy CREATOR in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them...Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and THE SPIRIT SHALL RETURN UNTO GOD WHO GAVE IT...Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: FEAR GOD, and keep his commandments: for THIS IS THE WHOLE DUTY OF MAN.14 For GOD SHALL BRING EVERY WORK INTO JUDGEMENT, WITH EVERY SECRET THING, whether it be GOOD, or whether it be EVIL."

I quote you; "But more specifically if you would trust in your Bible, you would know that you should not behave morally because of an after life, since you don't know if there is one, but be happy in your happiness for this is your alloted time:

16 Furthermore, I have seen under the sun that in the place of justice there is wickedness and in the place of righteousness there is wickedness. 17 I said [e]to myself, “ God will judge both the righteous man and the wicked man,” for a time for every [f]matter and for every deed is there. 18 I said [g]to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts [h]is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is [i]vanity. 20 All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. 21 Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth? 22 I have seen that nothing is better than that man should be happy in his activities, for that is his lot. For who will bring him to see what will occur after him?

Ecclesiastes 3"

What about:

Mark 10:30But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in THE WORLD TO COME eternal life.

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!